Cops Giving Tickets at ESSO...

[Soundy]

Nowhere did I ever say "NEVER EVER BREAK LAWS".

Go back and turn on your reading comprehension.

[dared3vil0]

Originally Posted by Soundy

public floggings would be a great plan

So you're saying if someone commits a moving violation, they should be subjected to capital punishment? What the hell is wrong with you?

Originally Posted by Soundy

IF YOU'RE NOT A WHINY, SELF-CENTERED LITTLE BITCH.

Nvm, it's your anger issues.

[punkwax]

Originally Posted by 4444

Have very little for Canadian police, outside of the delta pd (they've shown common sense whenever I've dealt with them), the rest do not act appropriately or in a manner that deserves respect of the average person

I've had the exact opposite experience with Delta police myself.. won't bring up my personal experiences but I used to work in Delta and remember a group of young kids came in all depressed because each one of them got a ticket for jaywalking. There were no legal crosswalks for at least a km in each direction from where they were ticketed

I already had a negative impression of them and that story cemented it.

[Nlkko]

Originally Posted by DragonChi

True, those people texting while driving on the highway are the hazards. Those people would be the one texting while stopped too, right?

You could say lazy, but I say efficient. You could grab a bunch of people in a stop light rather than chasing someone down one by one.

Ok, so if it was OK to use your phone at a left turn signal or bumper to bumper traffic, but not anytime else. How would you enforce that?

My point exactly. It cannot be enforced without introducing many grey areas that would just cause more abuse on the traffic violation dispute system.

Also people seems to fixate on the potential misinformation that the cops is writing only "cellphone tickets". He could have been looking for all kind of violations and "cellphone tickets" is just one of them.

I don't understand why people gets so riled up over this law. In-car electronics are so advanced nowadays you don't even have to pick up the phone to check for a missed calls or texts. Unless you're browsing facebook or the interwebs too?

[mac25]

I still don't agree with this law being used for people talking on the phone. If it's next to your ear then it shouldn't be a ticket. if it's in your lap and you're using your eyes while texting or googling or what ever takes your eyes away from the road, then it should be a ticket.

[46_valentinor]

Originally Posted by mac25

I still don't agree with this law being used for people talking on the phone. If it's next to your ear then it shouldn't be a ticket. if it's in your lap and you're using your eyes while texting or googling or what ever takes your eyes away from the road, then it should be a ticket.

but you still need to pick up the phone, look at it then touch the talk button. If the law was written the way you had it then everyone who has a cellphone next to their ears are basically admitting guilty to breaking the law.

honestly imo, i really don't need politicians to tell me what i have the capability to do and what i can't do. i do things within my own comfort level. If i get a ticket for being on the phone, speeding, etc then so be it.
its not illegal until you get caught and unfortunately, its just a big game of hide and seek.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by GG

most retarded law ever

if people cant multi task by holding a phone while driving than certainly they cant drive stick

cuz anything in their hand other than steering wheel is gonna make them crash, well hell they might as well as deserve to drive themself into the wall. because they shouldnt be driving in the first place

I support this law. The statistics show that distracted driving is the 2nd leading cause of accidents. The human brain is incapable of true multi-tasking. We can merely rapidly switch our attention from one task to the other. (Try playing tetris on two devices at the same time to see what I mean).

What people think is multi-tasking, is really your brain operating on auto pilot (subconscious), while your attentive brain can only focus on one task at a time.

If your brain is on autopilot, your reaction time to emergencies and your ability to process information that requires attention slows considerably. Most people drive on auto pilot, thus they think they can focus their attention on other things like their mobile phone. This is very dangerous.

I happen to think driving the speed limit also places the human brain in auto pilot mode. I drive aggressively and my attention is always focussed on threats around. I do not allow myself to get distracted by mobile devices.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by mac25

I still don't agree with this law being used for people talking on the phone. If it's next to your ear then it shouldn't be a ticket. if it's in your lap and you're using your eyes while texting or googling or what ever takes your eyes away from the road, then it should be a ticket.

If you're using a handsfree device you won't get a ticket. Both your hands should be on the steering wheel. I do not support eating while driving either.

[dvst8]

Just get a $15 bluetooth device. No tickets, No cops beating around the bush accusing you of looking at your crotch, and you will prevent some UNPREDICTABLE accidents. Problem solved.

Anyway, I don't know why you're all on the phone when you're suppose to be driving.....

[Timpo]

Originally Posted by DragonChi

True, those people texting while driving on the highway are the hazards. Those people would be the one texting while stopped too, right?

You could say lazy, but I say efficient. You could grab a bunch of people in a stop light rather than chasing someone down one by one.

Ok, so if it was OK to use your phone at a left turn signal or bumper to bumper traffic, but not anytime else. How would you enforce that?

Yes, now that people know cops are waiting at red lights, people will learn their lesson not to text at red light anymore.

But they will keep texting on highways.

[Timpo]

Originally Posted by Great68

Wrong. The real point of the law was to increase road safety. To make the public perceive that people on the phone were getting into crashes and killing people.

Except that no one is going to die when someone is on the phone waiting for the light to change in a left turn lane, or sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.

This is where enforcement is going beyond the actual intent of the law.

If they really were enforcing the intent of the law, they would be patrolling the highways and pulling people over there, not people stopped at intersections.

But that takes EFFORT. Heaven forbid.

As a driver, I get just as pissed off at that oblivious fuck on the highway that's on the phone and drifting between lanes like they're drunk.

The problem is that it's THOSE people that aren't getting pulled over.

Good point, but I doubt it's making any difference.

How many accidents were caused by people texting at redlights? Probably NONE.

How many accidents were caused by people texting while driving on the road? TONS.

[whateverman]

what about pig that are on their computer while driving
Tail gating trying to punch in my plate

90% of time I see pig driving , they're looking at their damn computer and not the road
Who are policing them
Posted via RS Mobile

[dared3vil0]

They are trained to use their computer and drive... You're not.

[inv4zn]

Originally Posted by whateverman

what about pig that are on their computer while driving
Tail gating trying to punch in my plate

90% of time I see pig driving , they're looking at their damn computer and not the road
Who are policing them
Posted via RS Mobile

Strong username.

[fearlesss]

Originally Posted by whateverman

what about pig that are on their computer while driving
Tail gating trying to punch in my plate

90% of time I see pig driving , they're looking at their damn computer and not the road
Who are policing them
Posted via RS Mobile

you remind me that i saw a pig driving while talking on his phone.
i guess they get to do stuff we are not allow to

[4444]

Just for the record, to ensure I'm not misunderstood in my stance, I fully support this law, but I do no support the way police enforce it by being sleazy little shits hiding behind bushes like rapists ready to pounce.

If it's fair cop, and you get caught, pay the fine, but if I ever get done in a sleazy sting, it riles me up (I've never been caught using my phone, as I don't use it/ have Bluetooth/hands free connectivity in the car)
Posted via RS Mobile

[nma]

Originally Posted by Great68

Wrong. The real point of the law was to increase road safety. To make the public perceive that people on the phone were getting into crashes and killing people.

Except that no one is going to die when someone is on the phone waiting for the light to change in a left turn lane, or sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.

This is where enforcement is going beyond the actual intent of the law.

If they really were enforcing the intent of the law, they would be patrolling the highways and pulling people over there, not people stopped at intersections.

But that takes EFFORT. Heaven forbid.

As a driver, I get just as pissed off at that oblivious fuck on the highway that's on the phone and drifting between lanes like they're drunk.

The problem is that it's THOSE people that aren't getting pulled over.

I think that's a bit ridiculous. You're asking cops to cruise around looking for people on their phones? That is super inefficient. Most people are relatively aware of their surroundings and would have to be pretty dumb to get caught texting with a police cruiser right beside them. On the other hand, if you're sitting at the light texting, odds are you probably do it while you're driving as well. Thus it's easier for them to send out a message this way and just to disallow texting while driving PERIOD. This seems BEYOND reasonable to me.


This is coming from someone who got a ticket at a red light. Funny thing I wasn't even texting, just making sure my phone was charging on my seat. However, I fully understand the intent of the law and why it's put in place. I have seen SO many instances of near accidents / accidents because people were busy fumbling with their phones. Talking to a passenger and talking on the phone are different. For some reason, your brain is much more distracted when talking on the phone. Even when I use my car's bluetooth, I find my self chatting away and at times I just auto-pilot throughout the conversation. I like to think I'm pretty aware when I'm driving, so I can only guess how scary it is when someone who is awful to begin with is auto piloting and distracted.

[Yodamaster]

Originally Posted by whateverman

what about pig that are on their computer while driving
Tail gating trying to punch in my plate

90% of time I see pig driving , they're looking at their damn computer and not the road
Who are policing them
Posted via RS Mobile

Police officers go through many hours of training to be able to use their computers safely, not to mention the fact that police computers are simplified for driving. Civilians are not trained to use electronic devices safely in their cars, and even at that, the equipment and useage of that equipment is vastly different.

Police computers mounted in cruisers are a vital part of the job at hand, your phone is not. To be honest, I didn't expect you to come to that conclusion on your own, since you seemingly have the writing ability of an infant Chimpanzee.

[DragonChi]

Originally Posted by Timpo

Yes, now that people know cops are waiting at red lights, people will learn their lesson not to text at red light anymore.

But they will keep texting on highways.

At least something is being done. I would hope that most people wouldn't text on highways compared to the amount of people texting at red lights, but you could be right.

[xpl0sive]

what are your guys' opinions about speed traps being done mostly on nice days? If you ask the cops why they are mostly out on nice days pulling people over for speeding, they'll say "people are more likely to speed because it's nice out".... So, they are out in the sun, having a good time, issuing as many tickets as possible because there's more people speeding. As far as public safety is concerned, they really don't care. People are speeding when it's nice out, because it's safer to drive a bit faster.

To me, the cops should be out setting up speed traps when its pissing rain and visibility is terrible. Sure, there won't be as many people speeding, but catching the ones that are would actually make a difference and make the other drivers safer.

Once again, "Serve and Protect" isn't really the main goal here, and it's clear.

I wonder what Soundy will have to say about this one.... Add me to the list of people who's car should get stolen? By the way, my car did get stolen a few years ago and I jumped into my other car and started going after the guys, while I was on the phone with the cops. I told them exactly which way the thieves went with my car. What did the cops do? Absolutely nothing. They finally found my car a week later, somewhere in butt-fuck Surrey. So really, I wouldn't bother calling the cops again, except ICBC will get upset if I don't and give me trouble with my claim....

[dared3vil0]

They don't want to stand out in the rain. Simple as that.

[nma]

Yeah, let's stand out when it's pissing rain and visibility is terrible to pull over maniacs. Doesn't sound dangerous AT ALL. Probably worth writing the tickets, because for sure those retards speeding in the first place will learn their lesson. GREAT logic!

You know cops aren't robots right? They also want to be comfortable doing their jobs, and don't need to be put in unnecessary risk.

Pulling over people like that won't make the roads any safer. If anything, they are going to rage and drive off. When you lack the common sense
to drive safely in poor conditions, I'm sure you lack in other departments too.

[Nlkko]

Originally Posted by xpl0sive

what are your guys' opinions about speed traps being done mostly on nice days? If you ask the cops why they are mostly out on nice days pulling people over for speeding, they'll say "people are more likely to speed because it's nice out".... So, they are out in the sun, having a good time, issuing as many tickets as possible because there's more people speeding. As far as public safety is concerned, they really don't care. People are speeding when it's nice out, because it's safer to drive a bit faster.

To me, the cops should be out setting up speed traps when its pissing rain and visibility is terrible. Sure, there won't be as many people speeding, but catching the ones that are would actually make a difference and make the other drivers safer.

Once again, "Serve and Protect" isn't really the main goal here, and it's clear.

I wonder what Soundy will have to say about this one.... Add me to the list of people who's car should get stolen? By the way, my car did get stolen a few years ago and I jumped into my other car and started going after the guys, while I was on the phone with the cops. I told them exactly which way the thieves went with my car. What did the cops do? Absolutely nothing. They finally found my car a week later, somewhere in butt-fuck Surrey. So really, I wouldn't bother calling the cops again, except ICBC will get upset if I don't and give me trouble with my claim....

So they should have radioed in the fleet and then what? Follow you through public street to chase him? This aint no fast and furious. Was it a life threatening situation? No. Call the cop and file your claim. That's what you pay insurance for.
Posted via RS Mobile

[xpl0sive]

The definition of being a cop is being at risk I order to protect the general public. Be it from thieves, serial killers or speeders. The whole point of pulling over speeders is supposed to hit them where it hurts, in the "pocket book". That should technically encourage them to slow down and make others safer. People who speed in the rain are at much higher risk of causing a collision, I hope your tiny brain is able to grasp that concept. When was the last time you heard of someone getting pulled over, "raging" and driving off?? It seems you are the one who lacks common sense as well as in "other departments". Resorting to personal attacks is just a sign of not being able to put together any type of valid argument.
Posted via RS Mobile

[nma]

Originally Posted by xpl0sive

The definition of being a cop is being at risk I order to protect the general public. Be it from thieves, serial killers or speeders. The whole point of pulling over speeders is supposed to hit them where it hurts, in the "pocket book". That should technically encourage them to slow down and make others safer. People who speed in the rain are at much higher risk of causing a collision, I hope your tiny brain is able to grasp that concept. When was the last time you heard of someone getting pulled over, "raging" and driving off?? It seems you are the one who lacks common sense as well as in "other departments". Resorting to personal attacks is just a sign of not being able to put together any type of valid argument.
Posted via RS Mobile

I think you may want to re-read what I wrote. I did not resort to any type of personal attack. I think you are the one who is butt hurt and angry, if you read what you just wrote, you're basically contradicting your self.

"Resorting to personal attacks is just a sign of not being able to put together any type of valid argument."


"I hope your tiny brain.." "You lack common sense, as well as other departments.."

I'm not sure what level of reading comprehension it takes for you to understand that I was addressing those that drive unsafely in awful conditions. If you are one of those people, then yes, you do lack common sense. As for your argument, I'm not too sure what you're talking about because you're just repeating what you said before and didn't really address safety concerns for police officers and the trade offs for such risks. Yes, you're right, the definition of a cop is to serve and protect. That doesn't mean they can't do so within a reasonable amount of risk. Perhaps it is inefficient to stand in the rain and write tickets. Maybe a cost-benefit analysis was done for cops standing out in the rain, under poor conditions. Maybe the results concluded that it wasn't worth the RISK and the COST of the tax payers dollar to stand in the rain. Wouldn't you want your police force to be as efficient as possible? After all, you're the one paying for part of it..